Talk:Crossover (episode)
Featured Article status Seems like there are articles with less work put into them that are featured, so this one definitely deserves it. I like the navigation for the mirror universe episodes, too. Coke 21:06, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Support' Tough Little Ship 09:57, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) **'Comment'Oppose only because I think that there are more characters, places, and things that could be FAs with a little community support instead of another episode summary. Logan 5 14:39, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC) **It's not like there's a limited amount of space for featured articles. If you don't think the article is complete enough to warrant being featured, that's one thing. But if you're opposing just because you think too many featured articles are episodes, I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to oppose. --T smitts 05:39, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC) **'Comment' - Maybe just having an episode summary that's 347 KB long shouldn't be among the reasons for featured, but actual community team work and great content. Maybe give a little while before more episodes. - AJHalliwell 18:15, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***I think you're right. I'll put the other episodes up to be removed as featured articles. Coke 06:37, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***I made a suggestion in Ten Forward but for the time being your rationale does not constitute a valid reason unless you wanna be the one who removes all those articles from the featured list. You can't support one and oppose another. That's called hypocrisy Coke 06:42, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) ****And you can't just arbitrarily decide that one persons vote is invalid either. The fact of the matter is, is that we just recently had a half-dozen plus of these episode articles featured in the past couples weeks and it has been the feeling of myself and several others that there have been far too many "easy" featured articles slipping through lately, which really defeats the purpose of having featured articles in the first place. As AJ clearly stated above, give it some time before we start inundating the community again with episode summaries for featured articles and focus more time and effort into researching into the other 75% of the main characters whose pages are not yet complete or the numerous other people, items or events that could be explored. --Alan del Beccio 06:59, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) *****Yeah... That's not cool. If the reason is invalid, the admins will do something like that one (I forgot which character it was) where someone said they opposed it because the episode sucked. But I agree about the episode summaries, although I can see Coke's point about raising the bar ex post facto. All I can say is that it's a subjective process so try to adapt rather than going against the grain. --Schrei 18:30, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Strong support'. After considering this issue over the past few days, I agree with Coke and Smitty about the grounds for opposition being moot. This is about the article not politics. Until such time as someone voices a concern that relates to this specific article, I see no reason to disqualify it. --Schrei 18:29, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) ** I'm going to contradict myself by doing this, but Schrei is right, any "political" objections probably should be void, or viewed simply as comments. It, too, should probably be noted that we really should hold off on nominating any more episode summaries until we can hammer out our discussion currently being held in Memory Alpha talk:Featured article policies. --Alan del Beccio 19:34, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***I gotta say, I think that's not really cool. Having admins invalidate votes for anything other than factual error seems to be the exact sort of political debate you want to avoid. A vote is subjective, period. My vote should not be invalidated because someone doesn't like my reasons. I don't want to see another episode as featured article right now, so I opposed. I could make something up to cover that personal preference, much as I feel has been done to other nominees, but I don't. If this is the policy then perhaps I will start doing that. Even if this is the policy going forward, it shouldn't move this article from "with objections" to "without objections" since this was all done before this discussion. Logan 5 20:30, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) ****Ahahahaha, gimme liberty or gimme me death aight? Your reason was st00pid dude. Ima oppose every nomination you make on the basis of not wanting to see another Logan 5 article & see how subjective that is. :-D Ben Sisqo 20:37, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) *****Whatever, I was trying make a point about trying to impose objective limits on a subjective thing. New user makes immediate impact. Is that the headline you wanted? ******I can't stand those Wikipedia people who are always doing something "to make a point". Ben Sisqo 21:07, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Oppose' Since I can't just say I don't want an episode as FA let me try to be more specific. The article is complete but as has been stated, completeness is not a sufficient criteria. The writing is fine, but not terribly exciting because its a step-by-step recap of the episode and frankly not interesting enough to me to warrant FA status. I don't think it adds as much to MA as a featured article should; it doesn't expand the Mirror Universe knowledge, it doesn't tie in other relavent material or episodes, it's a rewrite of the episode, even if it's a long one. Logan 5 20:53, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) No, I didn't realize it had to be unaminous so I won't stand in the way but would suggest reconsidering unanimty. Logan 5 17:44, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) **Logan, if you had simply said the part about mirror universe knowledge I'd thank you for clarifying. However, you indicated on both this page and the other talk page that you made the reason up to cover your other reason and that which we call invalid by any other name is still invalid. Anyway, I've added more background information, to the point that I don't think there's any more to be said without getting into stuff that should be in other articles about the mirror universe... --Schrei 22:14, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***I'm sorry you feel that way, but as I said, I didn't think it was really necessary to elaborate to this point when, as you say, it's essentially the same objection. I just was trying to sort out why it was necessary to give more detail when it doesn't change the base reason for opposing: which is to say that I think these issues are common to episode nominations. Logan 5 00:06, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***'Comment': As there's no formal definition of what exactly are/aren't valid reasons to object (see: Memory Alpha:Featured article policies), Logan's objection is valid. That's why we're having this humongous discussion about this and related topics for some time now. Feel free to participate or continue to participate. -- Cid Highwind 22:21, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) ****Whatever. I'm starting to wish I'd never heard the words featured article - it's not supposed to take this much effort. But for the record, let it be known that Logan's "objection" is not based on this article's merits. --Schrei 22:26, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) *****For the record, let me say that merits is subjective. I feel my objection is based on merits because I don't think summarizing an episode has the same merits as articles that reach across episodes. The only reason I didn't go into more detail to begin with is because I didn't realize we had to itemize the entire laundry-list of reasons behind an objection when it can be boiled down to a more succinct statement. I'm happy to do that in the future, though, if it clears things up I just thought that your reasons for having issue with my objection had less to do with the detail of the objection and more to do with the idea that you didn't like my reasons, regardless of how detailed they were. To me, that's not a reason to invalidate a vote. Logan 5 00:41, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) ******''Merits'' are subjective. And frankly, this is ridiculous. If I knew that all it took was one stubborn persons vote saying "I don't want to see another episode as featured article right now, so I oppose", then I sure as hell would have done that a loooong time ago -- as I'm sure many of you know I have been making a stink about the number of featured episode articles we've had over the past month. But for the sake of civility and keeping the peace among the ranks, I chose instead to quitely sit back and not vote rather than to irritate the community with my opinion, when frankly there was nothign wrong with the article(s). But now, seeing that Mr. Logan's vote can be considered valid for a purely political reason, that goes far beyond the criteria of what one is expected to look for when critiquing articles, then like Schrei says...."Whatever. I'm starting to wish I'd never heard the words featured article - it's not supposed to take this much effort." Now if you actually made your objections clear as you seem to make them now, which I find faux at best ("I could make something up")...this would have never turned into the so-called "political debate" I wished to avoid. --Alan del Beccio 00:53, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) *******You're absolutely right, it is ridiculous. My last comment on this is that I'm ONE VOTE. ONE. If my vote is the only one opposing the nomination then there's no reason it shouldn't go through, regardless of reason. That's my entire point. When we start counting the REASONS for a vote, instead of the vote itself, it's ridiculous. I am truly sorry to have stirred all this up. I was only trying to state my reasons for oppossing (which were never faux, I only didn't think I was required to explain my entire line of reasoning) and then was told that my reasons weren't valid; something which had never been a criteria that I could find. I'll continue to vote on nominations, and if I oppose I'll be sure to list the entire reasoning behind it even though I think the true political agenda is objecting to an oppose based on the reasoning rather than any factual errors. Again, I'm not trying to cause problems. Really. Logan 5 01:04, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) ********Maybe you didn't realize this logan, but the votes are supposed to be unanimous, meaning one vote very much matters. Perhaps we need to change that policy to "overwhelming majority" or some other term. I know Wikipedia wouldn't survive a day with a policy of unanimity - this might just be a sign of MA's growing pains. In the meantime, would you mind rescinding your vote, since you apparently didn't understand the implications? --Schrei 15:10, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) * Support. - AJHalliwell 13:39, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Comment'. I'm glad we semi-resolved this issue (at least as much as plugging the hole in a sinking ship). But I'd like everyone to visit the policy talk page for some information on "the episode issue" and please weigh in on both Alan's and Cid's suggestions. --Schrei 21:03, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Lukewarm'... It's not as bad as These Are the Voyages (33kb v 79kb) but there are parts where it could use pruning. It looks like there's more going on here than I can tell so Ill stay neutral only because it's not as anally written as the other one. Ben Sisqo 01:38, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC) * Archived -- complaints may be lodged at Memory Alpha:Featured article removal candidates. --Alan del Beccio 03:23, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) Background Information It seems to me that the background information section of this page needs some work. #it seems that the information about Kirk making an impression on the alternate universe Spock should be (and actually is) covered in Act One. This seems to be left over from very early versions of the article and was never removed. #the statement about O'Brien and Bashir sabotaging the station somehow in order to facilitate a quick and easy getaway seems to be pure speculation to explain a flaw in the story. Furthermore neither the episode nor the original script seem to indicate that there was any time for them to commit any sabotage. I'm new to all this so I wanted to see what anyone else thought before I acted, thanks. F8street 13:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC) : I know it's like 18 months since you posted this, but I'm pretty new myself, and I totally agree. I think the thing about sabotaging the station is ridiculous. There is NO evidence for it whatsoever – Bertaut 20:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Real world? Why does this article have 'the real world point of view'? I can't find any reason for it to have, other than it being an episode summary. -- Bakabaka 14:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC) :Thanks, Sulfur! -- Bakabaka 14:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Kira and Odo "Intendant Kira's reaction to Odo's death may have been a hint at a future romance between the two of them, as she appears more upset by the fact that Bashir killed Odo than anything else." :I deleted this point, as it seems to be speculation at best. She's pissed off cause he runs the ore processor better than anyone else - there is no hint whatsoever that she is secretly in love with him, and even if there were, this is not 'our' Kira anyway, so to claim there is a 'hint at a future romance' in her reaction is way off the mark. Although, if people disagree with me, by all means, just put the comment back – Bertaut 23:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Kira and Kira I think it's worth noting in Background Info that Kira's the only person who's met her MU counterpart face to face. Anyone agree/disagree? - Mitchz95 02:43, October 20, 2011 (UTC) The Unknown Female Klingon Guard Could this, possibly, be Megan Gallagher? (Megan Gallagher) The eyes and lips look very similar. HormusPeston (talk) 09:19, June 15, 2013 (UTC) :I'm not sure which image "this" refers to, but Gallagher only appeared in the episodes listed on her page. 31dot (talk) 10:55, June 15, 2013 (UTC) "This" referred to the "Female Klingon Guard" in the the Un-credited Co-Stars. Sorry. I now realise that the title was not as clear as I thought. See this: Unnamed Klingons#Klingon guard (mirror universe) Direct link to the image: File:Loreva.jpg The resemblance is uncanny! HormusPeston (talk) 14:41, June 15, 2013 (UTC) :Perhaps, but I'm not sure that's enough evidence to claim it's her. 31dot (talk) 14:45, June 15, 2013 (UTC) Evidence! It's not even close to being evidence! But I was curious. And I'm wondering if I should sign up for the free trial at imdbPro just to contact her agent... Nah. Not worth it! Thanks for the quick response 31dot. Much appreciated. HormusPeston (talk) 15:31, June 15, 2013 (UTC) ::Isn't that Cameron? -- DS9 Forever (talk) 15:52, June 15, 2013 (UTC)